What is going to be your endgame speaker?

[dcathro]

Larger than the average Hong Kong apartment for sure .

I'd like to see a pair of those in a HK apartment

 

[Gregadd]

The 5 year plan and when we have left the City for a suitably commodious location …

View attachment 110789 View attachment 110790

Maybe you can find an airplane hangar. Such a work of art shoudl be in a museum or art gallery.

 

[Gregadd]

My criteria.
!. Dynamic range.
2. It must be able to play at realistic levels without breakup or image collapse.
3. Ot must have PRaT. Many speakers excel when the music is slow and there is a solo instrument. They struggle when the pace picks up and multiple instruments are added.
4. Resolution and detail. this contributes to the illusion of reality. I am not looking for a magnifying glass.
5.Reasonably good imaging and dispersion. Most source material lacks good imaging. Dispersion is not that big a deal. I'll be sitting in the sweet spot.
6. It can be big but not imposing.
7. Bass- the music lives in the midrange but if you have heard good bass you can't live without it. I can' abide ringing or rattling.
8. Tonality is important but not a deal breaker.
10. It should be a planar, dipolar, line source.
11. It should be a line source.
12. I prefer that it has a pedigree. New models are ok.
13. It should be amplifier friendly.
That's a baker's dozen.

 

[Argonaut]

Maybe you can find an airplane hangar. Such a work of art shoudl be in a museum or art gallery.

An installation with the added ability to make astonishing music appear in ones Music Room / Gallery / Zeppelin Hanger

 

[Another Johnson]

I'd like to see a pair of those in a HK apartment

It looks to me like a low shot with a wide angle lens, so I don’t trust the sense of scale. Wide angle lenses distort size relationships compared to normal human perspectives. In any event, I’m sure they’re very nice.

Regarding stand mounters, that path was going to be my end game five years ago. My arthritis makes it impossible for me to wrangle any speakers around that weigh over about 60 pounds, so I chose stand mounters for their lightness. I had been using full range floor standers for 40 years, and I had several systems going at two houses. It was time to think about downsizing and consolidating.

I went through B&W, Revel (two models, two pair of each), a pair of Sonus Faber Liuto Monitors.

I ended up dissatisfied because I didn’t give up the floor standers cold Turkey. I still had them at one house, and I really missed the low end at the house where the stand mounters were the only option.

So I started messing with assorted powered subwoofer options. It was hard to blend them with the stand mounters. I tried various locations, and even Martin Logan’s PBK with the BF210. It always sounded good until I was comparing it to the full range speakers at the other house.

What hit me was that the stand mounted speakers have just as big a footprint as the full range. Visually they are less intrusive, but physically, you still can’t walk through them. And after you start adding subs, the stand mounters are actually taking up a bigger footprint than the full range, plus you’ve now got more cables or interconnects (depending on how you hook up the subs).

The Liuto monitors were the last ones here, and they moved into a modest home theater room. The main system went to Revel F228Bes, then to Wilson Sabrinas, and now to Sasha DAWs.

I don’t worry about the weight anymore. You listen to them every day. You only have to move them during the set up period. Wilson does the initial setup, and I got a helper to assist with tweaking a week later.

Of course YMMV. My purpose in telling the story is to possibly save someone the trouble of trying to shrink down from full range to monitor. There are some types of music where it works well enough, but if you’re used to full range, even on club level jazz recordings, you miss out on the double bass. And my sense that the stand mounters take up less space was wrong.

The other suggestion is that there is a big difference in the Wilsons between “on castors” and spiked. I would encourage anyone who has the option to spike their speakers in a semi-permanent spot as an experiment “just to see.”

 

[Argonaut]

It looks to me like a low shot with a wide angle lens, so I don’t trust the sense of scale. Wide angle lenses distort size relationships compared to normal human perspectives. In any event, I’m sure they’re very nice.

Allow me to illustrate ,

 

[Ron Resnick]

What hit me was that the stand mounted speakers have just as big a footprint as the full range. Visually they are less intrusive, but physically, you still can’t walk through them. And after you start adding subs, the stand mounters are actually taking up a bigger footprint than the full range, plus you’ve now got more cables or interconnects (depending on how you hook up the subs).

+1

If someone likes the point source sound of stand-mounted speakers I totally understand. But I've never understood stand-mounted speakers as a way to conserve space.

 

[Another Johnson]

5.Reasonably good imaging and dispersion. Most source material lacks good imaging. Dispersion is not that big a deal. I'll be sitting in the sweet spot.

In my experience most source material has excellent image casting potential, but in many systems and rooms it is not presented.

One of the tricks I use in evaluating configurations and components is to choose source materials that have been dissatisfying due to my sense that they were poorly produced. As my systems have marched forward, I find ever fewer lousy recordings… they improve as the system evolves.

My first system that was startlingly ear opening was based on Thiel CS2.0s, an Electron Kinetics Eagle 2A amp, a Conrad Johnson PV-5, and a Linn LP12 with Ittok and Ortofon HOMC. It was spooky just how well developed the soundstage was. It was my first real taste at home.

 

[Another Johnson]

Allow me to illustrate ,

View attachment 110804
View attachment 110805

Much clearer. Thanks!

 

[mondie]

This is a timely thread as I took delivery of my endgame speakers last year.

My criteria were active, TAD-based, sensibly sized, and minimal compromise except in the lowest bass octave. Lenard Audio is an Australian company that made my speakers over a two-year period of development and testing, bringing to life a concept that John Burnett had been evaluating for many years. The model is the Lenard Symphony Reference. Drivers are 2 x Audio Elegance 12", Audio Elegance 15" for the mid-bass, TAD 4001 & 703.

Heaven! It was worth the very long wait and hassle of bringing them to the UK.

 

[Al M.]

+1

If someone likes the point source sound of stand-mounted speakers I totally understand. But I've never understood stand-mounted speakers as a way to conserve space.

Correct. It's not.

The reason standmounts tend to give less problems in smaller rooms than large speakers is not less floor space, but avoidance of problematic speaker/room boundary interactions in such rooms that tend to come with larger speakers (which can make them "boxy" sounding and introduce imaging problems).

My monitor/subwoofer system takes up quite a bit of floor space. But in my view subwoofers are essential for almost any speakers that don't come with their own bass towers. Thus floor space occupation would not change for me with larger speakers, since I would keep the subs.

 

[Al M.]

Regarding stand mounters, that path was going to be my end game five years ago. My arthritis makes it impossible for me to wrangle any speakers around that weigh over about 60 pounds, so I chose stand mounters for their lightness.

My monitors weigh 75 pounds each and the stands weigh 100 pounds each. Yes, it's a pain moving the stuff around.

 

[Al M.]

So I started messing with assorted powered subwoofer options. It was hard to blend them with the stand mounters. I tried various locations, and even Martin Logan’s PBK with the BF210. It always sounded good until I was comparing it to the full range speakers at the other house.

My subwoofers integrate very well. But the great adjustability of the JL Audio subwoofers, including "extreme low frequency cut-off" and continuous phase adjustment (not just 0/180 degrees) plays a substantial role in that.

And yes, I used a friend's large-speaker system as reference to get right the balance of mid-bass vs low bass as much as possible.

 

[Another Johnson]

My subwoofers integrate very well. But the great adjustability of the JL Audio subwoofers, including "extreme low frequency cut-off" and continuous phase adjustment (not just 0/180 degrees) plays a substantial role in that.

I’m sure they do. It is good to have choices.
Subs that only allow phase inversion aren’t serious options.

FWIW, when I first started using subs in a two channel system, it was in a Masterpiece lineup of Martin Logan stats. The BF series ML subs are really quite well thought out. Guests from the recording industry complimented that system for how well the subs were integrated. The amps were Krell KSA 150s, vertically biamped.

 

[Al M.]

Subs that only allow phase inversion aren’t serious options.

As I found out. Fortunately a friend was wise enough to suggest these subs to me, while I had had another brand in mind. Glad I went with my friend's advice.

 

[Gregadd]

In my experience most source material has excellent image casting potential, but in many systems and rooms it is not presented.

One of the tricks I use in evaluating configurations and components is to choose source materials that have been dissatisfying due to my sense that they were poorly produced. As my systems have marched forward, I find ever fewer lousy recordings… they improve as the system evolves.

My first system that was startlingly ear opening was based on Thiel CS2.0s, an Electron Kinetics Eagle 2A amp, a Conrad Johnson PV-5, and a Linn LP12 with Ittok and Ortofon HOMC. It was spooky just how well developed the soundstage was. It was my first real taste at home.

if you have heard a binaural recording, you know what I mean. Instruments on the left and right and vocalist in the middle is ok. Yes, I have heard some fantastic audiophile recordings. The stereo construct is inadequate when compared to binaural.

 

[Another Johnson]

if you have heard a binaural recording, you know what I mean. Instruments on the left and right and vocalist in the middle is ok. Yes, I have heard some fantastic audiophile recordings. The stereo construct is inadequate when compared to binaural.

Binaural program material is inadequate by other measures (insufficient number of performances compared to availability of stereo performances).
I would not build a stereo system based on the premise that it was a diminished concept because of the existence of a literal handful of true binaural recordings. But we can disagree on that. It is good to have choices. Surround Sound is a related red herring.
FWIW, if you get it right, there is an image with depth and width even in old mono recordings.

 

[Solypsa]

FWIW, if you get it right, there is an image with depth and width even in old mono recordings.

Perhaps especially so. Hearing great old mono records is a mind bender, making one wonder about the last 50 years of progress. But then again all stereo recordings aren't equal either.

I do wonder what would have happened if three channel had taken off back in the day. But it didn't.

 

[Robh3606]

Doe's anyone ever have their End Game speakers???? For me there were at least 3 times and it always seems to be a moving target. Over time and as new technology and drivers come out things change. Again I think I have them, however time will tell!

Rob

 

[Robh3606]

Perhaps especially so. Hearing great old mono records is a mind bender, making one wonder about the last 50 years of progress. But then again all stereo recordings aren't equal either.

I do wonder what would have happened if three channel had taken off back in the day. But it didn't.

As far as 3 channel, what I have heard was impressive and better than stereo IMHO

Rob